LOS ANGELES – Dr. Karen Aboody estimates that she has cured several hundred mice of a cancer of the central nervous system called neuroblastoma.
First she injected them with specialized neural stem cells that naturally zero in on the tumors and surround them. Then she administered an anti-cancer agent that the cells converted into a highly toxic drug.
In her tests, 90 percent of the animals were rid of their tumors while healthy brain tissue remained undamaged.
To hear Aboody tell it, that was the easy part.
“People are curing mice right and left,” said the City of Hope neuroscientist. The real challenge is convincing the Food and Drug Administration to let her try this on people with brain tumors.
Reams of safety data must be amassed to satisfy the FDA. Scientists struggle to navigate all that red tape. Many don’t even try.
Now the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine has stepped in – with an $18 million grant financed by state taxpayers, courtesy of 2004’s Proposition 71, which created the state agency.
Aboody’s windfall is just one manifestation of the agency’s changing mission, galvanized by the 2008 hire of a director with a track record of moving discoveries from lab to clinic.
For 3 1/2 years, the agency focused on the basic groundwork needed to someday use human embryonic stem cells to replace body parts damaged by injury or disease. Such cures are still far in the future.
Now the institute has a more immediate goal: boosting therapies that are much further along in development and more often rely on less glamorous adult stem cells. It is concentrating its vast financial resources on projects that could cure conditions such as age-related macular degeneration, AIDS, sickle cell disease and various types of cancer.
In shifting its focus, the agency is moving to fill a void known as the “valley of death” – a point at which projects are typically too commercial to vie for federal funds, yet too risky to entice private investors.
This is how the agency – with its constitutional mandate to invest $3 billion in stem cell research over 10 years – plans to stay relevant as the state slashes billions from education, public safety, health and welfare programs to close a gargantuan budget hole.
“If we went 10 years and had no clinical treatments, it would be a failure,” said the institute’s director, Alan Trounson, a stem cell pioneer from Australia. “We need to demonstrate that we are starting a whole new medical revolution.”
Other changes helped spur this new direction. In March, President Barack Obama said he would expand federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells beyond the narrow limits set in 2001 by President George W. Bush, making state funding less crucial.
And since Proposition 71 was passed, scientists have created new kinds of stem cells – known as induced pluripotent stem cells – that can be coaxed to form many different types of tissues but are made without harming embryos and thus are eligible for federal funding.
When the institute handed out nearly $230 million in October to 14 research teams, including Aboody’s at City of Hope, it was its largest scientific investment by far. But it came with strings attached: In four years, recipients should have a clinical trial request ready to file with the FDA. Only four of the projects involve embryonic stem cells.
It is a significant change in direction for an effort originally designed to bolster research on human embryonic stem cells.
Proposition 71 was set in motion in August 2001, when Bush announced that federal funds could be used to study stem cell lines derived from human embryos. It marked the first time money from the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies was made available to the growing cadre of biologists who believed the cells could be transformed into replacement tissues that would cure a range of diseases.
But there was a catch. Like many Americans, Bush was opposed to the idea of destroying human embryos for any reason, including medical research. So he restricted federal funding to about 20 embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created.
Scientists were soon complaining that the Bush policy was unworkable. Many of the lines had chromosomal abnormalities or were contaminated with animal products, rendering them unsuitable for use in humans. Newer lines developed with private money could only be used in separate labs built without federal money.
The situation was also frustrating to patients who stood to benefit from the research. Bay Area real estate developer Robert Klein, whose son has Type 1 diabetes, proposed a radical solution: raise $3 billion through the sale of state bonds to fund stem cell research in California.
Backers of the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative, better known as Proposition 71, emphasized the potential for these flexible cells to reverse paralysis from spinal cord injuries and cure intractable diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Scientists, not normally known for grandstanding, rallied voters across the state. Californians approved Proposition 71 in November 2004 with 59 percent of the vote.
The first grants went out in April 2006, after fighting off legal challenges. Hundreds of millions of additional dollars followed.
Until a few months ago, these types of grants were the institute’s bread and butter. The agency has financed 29 new labs and more than 350 researchers at 51 California institutes, from UC San Diego to Humboldt State. Scientists funded by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine have produced 412 publications describing heart muscle cells, liver cells, retinal cells and others grown from human embryonic stem cells, among other experiments.
But those academic achievements don’t matter much to average taxpayers, Trounson said. People who voted for Proposition 71 “want to see some clinical treatments happen.”
Local journalism is essential.
Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds.
Subscribe to the Coronavirus newsletter
Get the day’s latest Coronavirus news delivered to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.